On 12/26/2016 12:22 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/603776
> ---
>  eclass/toolchain.eclass | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/eclass/toolchain.eclass b/eclass/toolchain.eclass
> index 55249b00249b..97511ee12440 100644
> --- a/eclass/toolchain.eclass
> +++ b/eclass/toolchain.eclass
> @@ -2119,13 +2119,13 @@
>  
>  do_gcc_config() {
>       if ! should_we_gcc_config ; then
> -             env -i ROOT="${ROOT}" gcc-config --use-old --force
> +             env -i CHOST="${CHOST}" ROOT="${ROOT}" gcc-config --use-old 
> --force
>               return 0
>       fi
>  
>       local current_gcc_config target
>  
> -     current_gcc_config=$(env -i ROOT="${ROOT}" gcc-config -c ${CTARGET} 
> 2>/dev/null)
> +     current_gcc_config=$(env -i CHOST="${CHOST}" ROOT="${ROOT}" gcc-config 
> -c ${CTARGET} 2>/dev/null)
>       if [[ -n ${current_gcc_config} ]] ; then
>               local current_specs use_specs
>               # figure out which specs-specific config is active
> @@ -2159,12 +2159,12 @@ should_we_gcc_config() {
>       # if the current config is invalid, we definitely want a new one
>       # Note: due to bash quirkiness, the following must not be 1 line
>       local curr_config
> -     curr_config=$(env -i ROOT="${ROOT}" gcc-config -c ${CTARGET} 2>&1) || 
> return 0
> +     curr_config=$(env -i CHOST="${CHOST}" ROOT="${ROOT}" gcc-config -c 
> ${CTARGET} 2>&1) || return 0
>  
>       # if the previously selected config has the same major.minor (branch) as
>       # the version we are installing, then it will probably be uninstalled
>       # for being in the same SLOT, make sure we run gcc-config.
> -     local curr_config_ver=$(env -i ROOT="${ROOT}" gcc-config -S 
> ${curr_config} | awk '{print $2}')
> +     local curr_config_ver=$(env -i CHOST="${CHOST}" ROOT="${ROOT}" 
> gcc-config -S ${curr_config} | awk '{print $2}')
>  
>       local curr_branch_ver=$(get_version_component_range 1-2 
> ${curr_config_ver})
>  
> 

Seems like an obvious bug and fix; is there any reason passing CHOST
around might be a bad idea? It seems to me that it enforces the behavior
it's meant to have to begin with and makes it more obvious that CHOST is
used.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to